Today’s correspondent is a paramedic from WA who was
…called to a patient who owned a lovely dog. We entered the house and shut the gate, as instructed, so the dog would stay inside the residence. While treating the patient I went back to the ambulance to retrieve equipment and in doing so, I left the side gate open and the dog escaped. We tried to search for the dog with the patient onboard but could not locate it. I never heard more about this specific case.
I am now curious as to liability and other consequences of a similar case, as it seems an easily reproducible problem. If it were to happen again, who would be liable? Assuming the patient were to pursue the matter through civil means.
Anyone who has pets knows that they are not merely property, but according to law they are. The relevant law then is the same as if any damage were done to a patient’s property or that property was lost.
First it would be the employer of the paramedic that would be vicariously liable if there is any liability.
Second the question would turn as always on whether the actions were reasonable or not. Leaving the side gate open when you go to get kit is probably not reasonable, but opening the gate to get the patient on the stretcher to the ambulance whilst all personnel there are working on saving the patient’s life so that there is no-one to secure the dog may be.
As for damages, a pet is irreplaceable- unlike a TV you can’t get another one and it’s just the same. Even so again the law would have trouble assessing damages for the loss of the dog – normal grief is not compensable – so absent the patient developing a recognised mental illness the damages would be the cost of another dog. If the lost dog was a purebred breeding animal earning a large income the damages too would be large. But if it was a rescue dog from the local pound, the damages would be no more than the cost of going to the pound and getting another one.
Conclusion
The fact that the lost ‘property’ was a dog doesn’t change any of the legal principles. If the loss was caused by the negligence of a paramedic in the performance of his or her duties the patient/owner could seek damages for that loss from the paramedic’s employer.
Australian Emergency Law 
Have look at the Dog Act 1976 and Dog Act Regulations As Amended
There maybe is offence under that for failing to confine the dog to the premises which the owner is liable or the person in charge of the dog, in this case the Paramedic. The matter is dealt with by issue of a modified penalty notice under the Regulations of $200. If the dog is not classed as dangerous.
Unfortunately as I’m using my phone I am unable to find the section of the Act and Regulations.
Any person can take a Dog Act matter to Court without Local Government Authority intervention. The offence is valid for 12 months for prosecution with a 28 day period from the time of the offence to issue an infringement notice.
If it was my dog I would be seeking that the paramedic be charged under the Dog Act or myself and use the defence of negligence and not bring in control of the dog at the time. As a natural person I can do that under the Act.
Like a traffic infringement, with the Dog Act, there is no vicarious liability by the employer on this matter.
I can’t see any relevant offence under the Dog Act 1976 (WA) or the associated regulations. There are offences related to failure to control a dog ‘in certain public places’ (s 31), ‘in exercise areas and rural areas’ (s 32) and ‘in places that are not public’ (s 34). Even if there is an offence described, I would not argue (if it came to it) that a paramedic who is called to a house to treat a person is not in charge of the dog that happens to be there. ‘Negligence’ is not a ‘defence’ but it does appear that evidence that one has taken all reasonable care is (s 33B).
The original author said: “I never heard any more about this specific case”. Seems highly likely that the dog returned home when it became hungry or thirsty or got tired of exploring. Dogs have a way of doing this with their excellent senses.
I have handled a few public liability claims involving dogs. One involved a breeding do, where it was possible to determine a reasonable future economic loss due to the dog’s past breeding record. However, in another case, the dog was a greyhound, and the claim was for future racing wins and breeding rights s a sire. it proved very difficult to determine an agreed reasonable valuation for the loss of the dog, as naturally the owner believed the greyhound was a future Australian champion, although it had yet to win a race after several starts. Valuing the property damage associated with a dog can prove to be a difficult exercise.